October 2026

The Legora BAR

The Benchmark for Agentic Reasoning measures how well AI models perform end-to-end legal tasks inside the Legora harness. Tasks are drawn from real-world cases, with outputs assessed against rubrics written by legal professionals. We repeat evaluations as both the models and the harness evolve. Each chart shows results relative to the average across the models evaluated for the relevant metric and task group.

October 2026 results

This month’s results cover 30 practice areas and seven task families across 17 models. Opus 5.5 leads on overall quality, scoring 6% above the 17-model average. It also leads in three of the seven task families, covering drafting, editing, and summarizing.

The models perform similarly on short tasks. The separation grows on longer cases, where the strongest model scores 55% higher than the weakest, compared with 7% on short tasks.

The overall ranking also hides real differences by type of work. Each of the six highest-ranked models drops to 10th or lower in at least one task family. It works the other way too: GPT-6.1 Sol, 13th overall, is in the top four on comparison tasks. Filtering by task family is the best way to choose a model for a specific job.

Quality by task length

Quality scores relative to the 17-model average for short, medium, and long tasks.

Claude (Anthropic)MetaGemini (Google)MistralKimi (Moonshot AI)Grok (xAI)GLM (Z.ai)DeepSeekGPT (OpenAI)Average of all 17 models (0%)
Opus 5.5Muse WonderSonnet 5.5Kimi K3Gemini 3.8 FlashFable 5.1Grok 4.7Mistral Large 4*GLM 5.3Muse Spark 1.3DeepSeek V4.1 FlashGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 AstraDeepSeek V4 ProGLM 5.3 FlashGPT-6 LunaShort−20%0%+20%0%0%−2%+1%+2%+2%0%+2%+3%0%+1%0%0%−4%−2%−2%−2%Medium−20%0%+20%+9%+6%+4%+2%+5%+6%+2%+7%+4%+1%−2%+1%−2%−4%−12%−8%−18%Long−20%0%+20%+18%+14%+12%+9%+4%+2%+6%−2%−3%+2%+2%−10%−8%−5%−5%−13%−24%

Quality vs. cost per case

Overall quality relative to the 17-model average, against average cost per case at public list prices.

Claude (Anthropic)MetaGemini (Google)MistralKimi (Moonshot AI)Grok (xAI)GLM (Z.ai)DeepSeekGPT (OpenAI)Average of all 17 models (0%)
−10%−5%0%+5%−100%−50%0%+50%+100%+150%+200%+250%+300%+350%Best valueCost per case vs averageQualityOpus 5.5Muse WonderFable 5.1Gemini 3.8 FlashSonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4*Kimi K3Grok 4.7GLM 5.3Muse Spark 1.3DeepSeek V4.1 FlashGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 AstraGLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProGPT-6 Luna

Quality vs. median time per case

Overall quality relative to the 17-model average, against median minutes per case.

Claude (Anthropic)MetaGemini (Google)MistralKimi (Moonshot AI)Grok (xAI)GLM (Z.ai)DeepSeekGPT (OpenAI)Average of all 17 models (0%)
−10%−5%0%+5%−100%−50%0%+50%+100%+150%+200%+250%Faster and betterMedian time per case vs averageQualityOpus 5.5Muse WonderFable 5.1Gemini 3.8 FlashSonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4*Kimi K3Grok 4.7GLM 5.3Muse Spark 1.3DeepSeek V4.1 FlashGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 AstraGLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProGPT-6 Luna

Citation grounding

Grounding score checks whether the source documents used to generate an answer are reflected in the citations.

Claude (Anthropic)MetaGemini (Google)MistralKimi (Moonshot AI)Grok (xAI)GLM (Z.ai)DeepSeekGPT (OpenAI)Average of all 17 models (0%)
Gemini 3.8 FlashKimi K3Muse Spark 1.3Fable 5.1Gemini 4 ArgonGLM 5.3Mistral Large 4*Muse WonderDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGrok 4.7GLM 5.3 FlashOpus 5.5GPT-6 LunaGPT-6.1 SolSonnet 5.5GPT-6 AstraDeepSeek V4 Pro−20%−10%0%+10%+20%+21%+16%+12%+9%+8%+6%+5%+4%+4%0%0%−5%−8%−14%−18%−19%−20%

Model verbosity

Average text output per case, split between responses and documents. Percentages show the difference from the 17-model average.

Response (chat text and comments)Document (written by drafting tools)
−100%−75%−50%−25%0%+25%+50%GPT-6.1 Sol+41%GPT-6 Astra+37%Gemini 4 Argon+33%Sonnet 5.5+16%Mistral Large 4*+15%Grok 4.7+12%Muse Wonder0%Opus 5.5−2%Gemini 3.8 Flash−5%GLM 5.3−8%Fable 5.1−11%Kimi K3−12%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash−13%GLM 5.3 Flash−14%DeepSeek V4 Pro−25%GPT-6 Luna−29%Muse Spark 1.3−36%

Quality by task family

Quality scores for each type of legal task, relative to the 17-model average for that task type.

Analyze / AnswerExtractCompareDraftReviewEditSummarize−30%0%+40%
Average of all 17 models (0%)

Methodology

Each model completes the same legal tasks in isolated environments within the Legora platform, using the Legora agent harness. Each case is run three times, with outputs assessed by an LLM-as-a-judge against criteria written by legal professionals and weighted by importance. Benchmark cases use synthesized or anonymized data and remain private to reduce the risk of training contamination.

Source: Legora. Chart families, practice areas and difficulty definitions follow legora.com/bar. The Legora BAR is a carefully selected subset made up of hundreds of cases drafted by our law firm partners and in-house legal engineers. This dashboard does not reflect the full range of test cases and combinations covered by our internal evaluation suite.

* Mistral Large 4 is in public preview. These results reflect the preview version; performance may change before general availability.

Built in collaboration with

Discover the future of legal work through a live product demo.

Experience the Legora aOS™ in action, from agentic workflows and legal research to seamless collaboration and client delivery through Portal.